IMPORTANT POINT
Election of Municipal council--Candidates of two groups secure equal number of votes--Presiding Officer is required to held draw of lots--Adjourning of meeting not proper.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:-The petitioners, who are elected Councilors of the Municipal Council, Malerkotla, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings of the first meeting of the members of the Municipal Council held on 23.7.2008 to the extent of conducting and holding of the election of President and Vice President of Municipal Council, Malerkotla, being violative of Rule 3 of the Punjab Municipal (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), with a further prayer to restrain Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur, respondent No.3 herein, from conducting draw of lots of both the candidates for the posts of President and Vice President.

2. In the present case, as per the notification issued under Section 12 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Municipal Council, Malerkotla, consists of 32 members i.e. 31 elected members and one Member of the Legislative Assembly of the area. In the election of the Municipal Council, Malerkotla, held in the month of June, 2008, 31 Councilors were elected. After the election, in view of the powers conferred upon him under Rule 3 (1) of the Rules, the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, appointed Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur, to convene the first meeting of the Municipal Council, Malerkotla, for the purpose of swearing of newly elected members and for election of the President and Vice President of the Municipal Council. Consequently, SDM, Sangrur, convened the first meeting of the Municipal Council, Malerkotla on 23.7.2008 for the aforesaid purpose. Notice of the said meeting was given to 31 elected members and Smt. Rajia Sultana, MLA, Malerkotla. In the said meeting, 31 elected members were administered oath and thereafter, election of the President and Vice President was conducted. In the said election, Shri Ishaq and Shri Ashif Quraishi, Municipal Councilors, contested for the post of President, whereas Shri Mohd. Nazir and Smt. Malti Singla, Municipal Councilors, contested for the post of Vice President. Both the candidates for each post secured equal number of votes i.e. 16 each. Then the Presiding Officer asked both the groups for conducting the draw of lots. But Shri Ashif Quraishi and Smt. Malti Singla, respondents No.4 and 5 herein, did not agree for that, therefore, the Presiding Officer postponed the meeting. Shri Ishaq and Mohd. Nazir challenged this action of the Presiding Officer by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 13011 of 2008, which was allowed by this Court and the Presiding Officer was directed to convene the meeting for holding the draw of lots between the candidates of both the groups, while observing as under :-

“We have heard the counsel for the parties. In our view, in the instant case, the Presiding Officer was not legally justified to postpone the meeting on 23.7.2008 without declaring any result and, thus, has committed grave illegality by not conducting the draw of lots between both the candidates for the posts of President and Vice President in presence of the members attending the meeting as provided in Rule 5 (c) of the Rules, which reads as under :-

“If two or more candidates obtain an equal number of votes, the person presiding over the meeting shall at once decide between the candidates by drawing a lot in the presence of members attending the meeting.”

A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule provides that the result of the election for the office of President and Vice President is to be declared in the same meeting itself and in case of equal votes, the draw of lots is to be held there and then in the same meeting in the presence of the Members attending the meeting. In such situation, the said meeting cannot be postponed on the request of any person or on the ground that one of the parties is not agreeing for the draw of lots. In our view, the action of respondent No.3 in postponing the meeting without conducting